Sorry if I'm not allowed to post this sort of thread, but I'd rather ask direct questions than interpret answers to other questions an apply them to my own.

I'm from the UK and for school work over the holidays I've got to find and explain/counter arguments for and against a political issue from another country, and I know that healthcare reform is a big one in America at the moment so I picked the easy one.

I've had good experiences with our NHS, and without it I would either be dead or my family would be deeply in debt due to my medical history (liver failure, mainly, which required a transplant). I also have asthma and as I'm 18 and still in full time education my prescribed inhalers are free. My family isn't very wealthy, my dad died when I was young from cancer (luckily his insurance paid off the remainder of the mortgage and a small amount of other debts) and my mum doesn't have a well paying job (below the national mean wage). We live modestly but don't have very financial problems.

So my questions are:

What, exactly is the problem with nationalized/socialized healthcare?

If the problem is due to it being paid for by tax increases, do you expect the increases to be larger or smaller than your current insurance cost?

Do you think it's 'fair' that people who cannot afford health insurance and have expensive medical issues should have to choose between suffering and large amounts of debt?

Do you think the quality of healthcare will improve/worsen with NHC?

Sorry if this thread isn't allowed or isn't in the right place (never used a forum like this before)

Socialized medicine and most healthcare insurance programs are unsustainable because they simply cover too much.

There are loads of affordable health care coverage options in the states that would cover catastrophic health conditions such as your liver conditions that would be very affordable for insurance holders who freely choose to pool risk.

However most health plans cover... routine doctor visits and other recurring costs that simply send costs over the top.

The easiest way to describe the problem with how we finance health care via the present insurance models...

Imagine what car insurance would costs if it included all of your gas and oil changes.

That’s the problem in a nutshell.

11
posted on 12/17/2010 7:29:04 PM PST
by rwilson99
(Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)

I am going to focus on only one aspect of your query, as there are others to outline the general problems with national health care.

You received a liver transplant. Like so many important medical breakthroughs, liver transplants were pioneered in the U.S. It is not because we have smarter people, it is because an open system encourages such breakthroughs. If the U.S. had an NHS in 1963 you could be sure that the technology would not be nearly so far along, possibly not available at any price.

If the U.S. embraces a fully nationalized system, then medical research will become even more politicized than it is now, with popular ailments and technologies getting preferential treatment, often without regard to their true potential or likelihood of success.

The world needs a class of researchers and doctors who are not completely at the mercy of government spending. The scandal of the climate change hoax as exposed by the leaked East Anglia e-mails demonstrates what can happen when there is too much reliance on the government teat.

12
posted on 12/17/2010 7:30:26 PM PST
by Dr. Sivana
(There is no salvation in politics)

Yeah... we have LOTS and LOTS of stories like yours here in the US too... many with very happy endings... more than you would think.

The difference is that when someone was in need, another person, private organization, local community, religious organization, doctor, hospital, etc. etc. stepped up and lended a hand... NOT THE FREAKING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Federal assistance is supposed to be a last resort... NOT the first option.

You say without government health care you’d
be dead. No. Without health care you’d be
dead. The government lied to you when they
said that only the government can provide
health care. Their purpose is to get you
to think that you need “charitable” government
services. False again. Government doesn’t
do charity. They do thinks for their own
purposes - such as when politicians use
tax dollars (definitely not charity because
it’s not optional) to get themselves re-elected.

We’ve had limited government healthcare, and
most people survive because they pay into
their own health care. In other words,
they work for it like they work for food
or housing.

I had a British friend whose father had a stroke while her parents were visiting her in the States. He went into intensive care for several weeks while he was nursed back to health. Eventually, he was deemed well enough to travel, but he was expected to be admitted into a critical care unit once back in England.

Instead, he was admitted onto a general ward. He died within two weeks.

Point one: there is no such thing as “free” healthcare. When you convince people that healthcare can be “free” and they do not pay for it directly, their demand for it is endless, and it is necessarily rationed. This happens in every country that has “free” socialized healthcare. And the irony is that people receiving the “free” healthcare pay far more for lower quality healthcare via taxes than we pay directly to receive way better healthcare.

Point two: you get what you pay for. That is an economic reality that cannot be escaped.

15
posted on 12/17/2010 7:32:38 PM PST
by exDemMom
(Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)

First off we have nationalized health care. Walk into any emergency room in the country with any ailment, tell them you cannot afford to pay and you will get health care. Your treatment will be paid for by people who can afford to pay.

That health care is the best in the world.

Here is the rub, aside from the fact we are not socialists. Everyone will have to participate...except for the politically connected, like unions and companies that support left wing ideology. So it is no longer socialized medicine. It is medicine that is good for thee, but not for me.

I have asthma too, Brendan. My medicine costs $130 per MONTH that I have to pay for myself, and I am on a fixed income. That is because I and my fellow Americans have to pay for the Research and Development of this wonderful stuff that keeps you and me breathing right. WE here in the States pay for the R&D so you folks in the UK can have it for free. Is that fair?

Most people I know from Great Britain say they like their healthcare. In the next breath they’ll relate some story about a family member that had to fight just to receive the simplest of care.

One friend had a family member who was actively suicidal. After one failed attempt, he was sent home from hospital and his information went into the system to get some psychological help. He was still actively suicidal when he was sent home, but those were the rules and there was no way to have him hospitalized for any longer. He would wake up in the middle of the night and try to kill himself, so my friend stayed up nights watching him. When my friend inquired about when someone would see him, the wait was six months. Six months later, a social worker visited him, determined that he was indeed suicidal and placed him on the next list to actually see a mental health professional. The average wait time was 12-18 months. He attempted suicide twice during this time and disappeared in the middle of the night several times without anyone knowing where he went. Thankfully, he survived long enough to actually receive care from a mental health professional.

Another friend with medical problems was assigned a doctor who obviously didn’t like her and treated her rudely. But, because he was the doctor available, she was unable to change to a different provider. He didn’t take her description of her symptoms seriously and eventually she quit going to the doctor.

I could go on, but if you’re actually from the UK, you’ve heard a million of them yourself.

23
posted on 12/17/2010 7:42:12 PM PST
by FourPeas
(From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. Ja 3:10)

1) An actual Brit student of 18 years neither speaks nor writes the way you did in this nonsensical brechenblatt charade.

2) Anyone just looking for the Yank's dichotemy would not preface the query with a longwinded explanation of Britain's own socialist system having "saved their life" several times by the tender age of "18"(!!). Seriously, the stench is appalling from that one.

3) Syntax, sentence structure, colloquialisms, all point to a rather unimaginative, predictably undereducated, dull American liberal with a limited vocabulary. I've worked in London and with and Brits for the past 25 years, and you're not even in the ballpark.

In 25 years, I've never met a Brit who liked their commie Health system. Ever.

Trot along, now, and leave the adults to our serious discussions. There's a good lad.

It’s not free to taxpayers, that’s for sure. Government is on the hook to cover EVERYTHING. National health “care” is enormously expensive and inefficient. Private insurance companies, when unmolested by government mandates, are far cheaper and more effective.

For the relative few who really cannot get insurance, there is always emergency room and small clinic care. Not ideal but far better than a brutal Soviet-style medical system.

Do you think it’s ‘fair’ that people who cannot afford health insurance and have expensive medical issues should have to choose between suffering and large amounts of debt?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, it’s not fair. But that’s not the point. The point is purely a governance one. That is, does a national government have the authority to enforce fairness on every facet of our lives? And at any cost to our wallets and freedoms? Does a national government have the authority to take over a portion of the insurance industry and exert its will over the medical fields?

And more importantly, SHOULD a national government have this authority and should we as free citizens allow it to happen? My answer is no.

Your own personal medical predicament is not really part of this debate. I know that sounds cold, but it is the hard painful unpleasant fact of the matter. Your own personal struggles are not my government’s problem. Good luck to you.

Do you think it’s fair that a buerocrat decides what care you get? Do you really think that your system gives everyone unlimited access to health care, or does it ration care, even if you don’t “perceive” the rationing? Some in America like to be masters of their own destiny, hard concept to understand for some.

The greatest health care system in regards to technology, pharma, procedurally, is right here in the US. There is a reason, the system allows people to make real money, gives people choices, etc..... National health care deincentivizes innovation and investment. From azt to zithromax, even in your uk you will use drugs first produced and marketed in the US in some cases by European drug firms!

Yes, you have a right to fail just like you have the opportunity to get rich. Anyone can have insurance. It’s a lie that insurance is overly expensive, inaccessible etc. Walmart and McDonalds offer it to their employees, every college student can get it for little........ It is not the role of government to by law dictate what you have to purchase, to include insurance. If you make bad choices and are unfortunate, that’s on you. Yes, it’s perfectly fine that some people go into debt when they become I’ll, because if you care check it, they did have a choice in the equation at some point.

I like the idea of being a customer, of having legal recourse, of having the doctor know that “I” pay him and that what “I” think matters. I have choices. My insurance is a private matter, it’s a legal contract that I enter in with an insurance that negotiates lower fees and levels/manages risk. The buerocrat is nothing more than another layer of red tape, where political favors are paid for with my money, and in the end, EVERY health care system on this planet has to ration care, but at least here “I” choose how that care looks, you?

There are a number of problems, some of which will be addressed in replies to your questions below, some of which are actually shared by the American system, which is why many of us on FR advocate market-based reform of that system.

First, all third-party payer systems, whether nationalized health care or the heavily-regulated, insurance-dominated American system, have no means of cost containment other than rationing of care. There is no effective competition among health care providers because there is not mechanism for passing price information to the purchasers/patients. A monopsony only exacerbates this problem.

Second, governments tend to be very inefficient in the provision of goods and services in comparison to the market.

If the problem is due to it being paid for by tax increases, do you expect the increases to be larger or smaller than your current insurance cost?

Larger, due to government inefficiency.

Do you think it's 'fair' that people who cannot afford health insurance and have expensive medical issues should have to choose between suffering and large amounts of debt?

There are different notions of fairness. Is it fair for the state to deprive us of the fruits of a labours unwillingly through taxation to succor the needs of people in the circumstances you propose? Or even if fair under your notion of fairness, is it desirable to impose such fairness by force?

And why limit your argument to healthcare? Is it fair that some cannot afford as good of food as others or no food at all? Is it fair that some cannot afford shelter? or clothing? or a motorcar to get to work (on this side of the Pond, distances are rather larger and rail and bus service rather sparser)? And on and on. . .

If we are Christians, it is incumbent on us as a matter of charity to provide for those in need. But even St. John Chrysostom, who in exhortations to the wealthy to engage in charity characterized the wealth of the rich as "theft from the poor", wrote strongly against the moral hazards of state imposed redistribution of wealth.

The state is not the only social institution able to provide aid (medical care included) to those in need.

Do you think the quality of healthcare will improve/worsen with NHC?

Worsen, due chiefly to rationing and a decline in the desirability of medicine as a profession.

Finally, I will answer a question you did not ask: what reform would you advocate to the American healthcare system?

1. Equalization of tax treatment for employer-provided health insurance and health insurance purchased by the insured.

2. Creation of a mechanism by which individuals wishing to purchase health insurance for themselves or employees of a small business could band together to form voluntary health insurance purchasing groups to give them corresponding leverage with insurance companies to that exercised by large employers or labour unions.

3. Increase in effective competition in the provision of medical services by a) insurance regulations requiring payments for services by the insured be a percentage of the cost, not a fixed copayment (this encourages finding the least expensive provider) b) improvement of the regulatory and malpractice insurance climate for marginal competitors to physicians (nurse-practitioners, nurse-midwives, psychologists with special training to earn prescription privileges. . .) c) requirements that physicians and hospitals publish rates for services

4. Utility-style regulation of prices for medical goods and services when a state-granted monopoly exists. This should include monopolies on pharmaceuticals, medical devices or procedures created by patent law, and might arguably include even physician's services in areas where no effective competition exists. (I find guild-monopolies as objectionable as corporate or state monopolies.) 5. Tort reform to lower malpractice insurance costs. I would propose capping non-compensatory damages (both punitive and pain-and-suffering awards) at the larger of $100,000 and three times compensatory damages (though I would allow loss of income as compensatory damages). But in conjunction with this, I would strengthen regulatory and criminal sanctions against malpractice.

39
posted on 12/17/2010 8:12:28 PM PST
by The_Reader_David
(And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)

One problem is that your doctors are basically slaves. But if that doesn't trouble your conscience that's not a problem.

Whose right is health care? Do you think it's yours?

Congressman Anthony Weiner has said that health care is not a commodity. If it isn't a commodity then do doctors and nurses have rights? Assigning health care the status of a right makes health care workers slaves to that right who must serve it. On what ground could a health care worker refuse to provide their products and services since that would violate the patient's "basic human right to health care."

That is a direct loss of individual rights for health care providers. The collective right of the people to receive health care would supersede the provider's individual right to set fees and hours or to change their occupational status or even decide how to apply their skills and knowledge if taken to its logical extreme. A collective right, by practical definition, is a state right because it is a right that is created and given by the government to those it chooses to give it to. It is not a natural right possessed by each person protected by the Constitution from the government. It is also a collective/state right by virtue of the fact that it would supersede individual rights when the two come into conflict. How else would the government view a right that it created and administers vs. one it has no control over?

Of course it isn't stated in any bill that a patient's right to care supersedes a provider's right to set fees and hours etc, but it doesn't need to. Rights, as always, are adjudicated in the courts. The Health Care Reform bills simply establish the foundation for the courts to rule in favor of the collective right.

Weiners view is collectivist, fascist and totalitarian. Collectivist because it has to be described as being a right of the many instead of the one and superior due to that fact. Fascist because ultimately the sole authority for its creation and oversight is from one entity the Federal government. Totalitarian because the Federal government is the enforcer of this collective right as well. State and local jurisdictions will have little say about it.

Congressman Weiner's view is the underlying philosophy of all of the Health Care Reform legislation in the House and Senate. Consider this section in the Senate version of the bill; the setting up of community watch dogs that will monitor citizens for various health parameters. Read pages 382 - 393.

So, even citizens themselves will be subject to Federal regulations on their behavior in order to fulfill the "human right" of universal health care. It isn't the individual's liberty that is being protected by that it is the government's control over its own health care system that is being guarded. How much clearer can it be that these bills abrogate the concept of individual rights? Someone will be checking your lifestyle, according to gov regulations, to be certain you serve the best interests of the "basic human right to health care" ie. "the Public Option."

HCR is not just about rationing care and wealth redistribution. It's about the end of individual rights as the corrosive effects of the new collectivist "basic human right to health care" spreads throughout the legal and political systems like a virus.

I think that the main purpose of Health Care Reform (HCR) is as a direct assault on individual liberties.

Another problem is that you're not free either. You're not even a human being as far as your government is concerned. You are a tax production unit who, statistically, must produce more revenue for the government than you take back in services. But you can't so your government borrows on what your children and grandchildren must produce to pay for you.

#1) America is broke.
#2) This Obamacare adds an enormous added debt to our already bloated budget.
#3) It robs funds from areas where it is needed the most. Mainly Medicare.
#4) Obamacare includes 14,0000 IRS agents ready to pounce on your bank account.
#5) The individual mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause.
#6) America was not founded on collectivism. Individual Liberty is embedded in our DNA. We do not worship Royalty or any other form of Monarchy.
#7) The European Union is on the Brink of collapse due mainly to enormous entitlement spending.
#8) Americans beleive in Liberty over a false sense of security.
#9) Our constitution was specifically written to keep us from sliding back to a nation of subjects. (Read the Declaration of Independance)
#10) Finally, this country has overwhemlingly just recently cast a vote of “NO-CONFIDENCE” in our current administration for a vast majority of reasons.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.